Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
of earthquake is evident.”
42
the following year, the Colchester quake of-
fered Milne a prime opportunity to convince the British public of the value
of his work. From tokyo, Milne sent off a letter to the
Times
in which he
offered a “few facts . . . based upon the observation of many hundreds of
earthquakes with every variety of seismograph and seismoscope with which
I am acquainted. My object in recording them is to give those who experi-
enced the earthquake some idea as to the true nature of the phenomenon,
the knowledge of which is unattainable without the use of instruments.”
43
Milne's insistence on the inadequacy of human observations was repeated
in subsequent reports on the temblor of 1884.
the 1884 earthquake also arrived at a moment when relations between
metropolitan and provincial science were in flux. In 1883 the British Asso-
ciation had attempted to smooth its interactions with the many provincial
scientific societies with which it cooperated. A committee chaired by the
distinguished Francis Galton would “draw up suggestions upon methods of
more systematic observation and plans of operation for Local Societies.” the
committee envisioned that the BAAS would become “an organizing centre
of local scientific work,” promoting “systematic local investigation.”
44
the
most thorough investigation of the Colchester earthquake was conducted
by Raphael Meldola and william white, members of the Essex Field Club
(founded in 1880), who framed their work as emblematic of this new era in
the relationship between metropolitan and provincial science in Britain.
45
In
the introduction to their report, Meldola and white presented their detailed
empirical report as a model of “local investigation” in the BAAS's sense.
“we are of opinion that such investigations should deal as exhaustively as
possible with the
facts
relating to any particular subject.” they expressed
due deference to the experts of the BAAS, wishing “that this task had been
taken up by some more qualified specialists.” As locals, they did their best
to “interpret the observations by the light of the results which have been
achieved in Japan” by Milne and Ewing. Finally, they warned emphatically
of the shortcomings of their data: “one point in connection with the report
which will doubtless strike our readers is the general untrustworthiness of
what may be called commonplace observations in any attempt to submit
an earthquake to exact mathematical treatment. If our labours serve only to
emphasize this inadequacy of non-instrumental methods of observation,
we feel that our efforts will not have been altogether exerted in vain.”
46
the
new era in the centralization of British science thus coincided with a new era
in seismology. the authority of metropolitan expertise over provincial expe-
rience rose along with the authority of instruments over human senses.
